Flyers Notes: Build The Team, Then The Culture

In the aftermath of one of the more embarrassing efforts I’ve seen by a hockey team this season, I’m overcome by thoughts about the appropriateness of “culture.”

The Flyers‘ front office has placed a premium on culture. They’ve swapped out the words a few times. Sometimes, it’s about a standard. Other times, it’s about the vibes “of the room.”

Many of their actual hockey decisions are informed by the endless chase of the idealized “culture” that is beginning to resemble a dog chasing his tail. Will the perfect culture ever be caught? Probably not, no. Was this chase even worthwhile or with a purpose to begin with? No. We just chose to chase our tail for a while, and I’m increasingly certain that the franchise will end up spinning its wheels if it continues prioritizing this pursuit of fool’s gold.

Now, let me be clear, I’m not saying that culture doesn’t exist or isn’t relevant at all. I do understand that these are human beings engaging in the sport of ice hockey and human dynamics come into play. In fact, in the right situation, I will even recommend taking bets specifically on psychological dynamics changing everything.

Evgeni Kuznetzov’s fall from grace has been too sudden. Too much and too soon. It doesn’t add up.

Evgeny Kuznetsov, acquired by CAR, is a pure playmaking centre whose deficiency in pretty much every area of the game except passing and (oddly enough) killing penalties has made him one of the most negative-impact playdrivers in the league the past two seasons. #CauseChaos pic.twitter.com/zHMz6RWCrt

— JFresh (@JFreshHockey) March 8, 2024

To go from one of the better forwards in the sport to the sport’s worst player (or close enough) in a year isn’t explained by things like aging curves. There’s something personal going on there, and the early returns in Carolina–both his first game with the team, and statements he made after the game–have only substantiated my thinking.

I won’t dwell on it too much. It’s just an example. Kuznetsov may well be an entirely different player from Carolina because the culture has changed. If anything, his marriage with Washington was toxic. I’m sure the organization played some role in that. I’m sure Kuzy himself played some role in that.

Sometimes, the relationship gets too far down the hill, and the only thing you can do is cut bait. Sometimes, we’re well past “it’s his fault or their fault,” and we’ve moved on… they are simply bad for each other.

It’s an extreme example. But there are more subtle examples.

Jack Eichel is a better player with the Golden Knights than he was with the Sabres. I’m sure part of it–only a part, though — is because Vegas has a better culture than Buffalo. The case being built for Pierre Luc-Dubois simply being anathema to any winning culture is becoming iron-clad, but that’s an extreme example too.

Ivan Provorov, in some ways, is probably enjoying his job more significantly in Columbus than in Philly. I’m not sure it’s led to any kind of on-ice renaissance, though. He’s still the second-pair defenseman being trusted like a first-pair defenseman and not showing any meaningful results. Philly certainly seems to have gotten on just fine without him in ways that aren’t entirely explained by his on-ice ability. Perhaps that marriage, too, was becoming toxic.

These things–these matters of the human heart, mind, and soul–are complicated. They’re much better discussed on a case-by-case basis. Even then, I prefer not to wade too deep into those waters because it’s impossible to know without knowing the players intimately on a personal basis. And even if you do clear that tremendous bar, it’s still no guarantee that you ever will understand what’s going on in their head.

There’s an artistic element to team-building, but there’s also a checklist that has an order that is almost beyond defiance. And I can’t help but wonder if the Flyers are going in exactly the opposite order. The traditional order of team building could be listed as such:

1. Talent. You need players who can execute complex tasks as well as–or better–than their peers. Or this is all hypothetical?
2. System. With an effective and realistic vision of how you want to play in hand, you can acquire players suited to that game style. That allows you to maximize talent by leveraging their strengths and concealing their weaknesses.
3. Culture. When everyone feels good coming to work, they do better work. When everyone is pulling the rope by the same end, you get a more organized and effective product. With the talent and system in place, that’s how good teams can become great.

I think there’s some interplay between 1 and 2. There’s a little bit of a chicken or egg discussion to be had as far as that’s concerned, but I’m very confident that 3 shouldn’t even come into play until you’ve ironed out 1 and 2. Or until you are well into the process of ironing out 1 and 2.

The Flyers largely have 2 established. They have a way they want to play set in place. I’m sure John Tortorella has had a large role in that, but I don’t think it was just him. I think Brad Shaw and Danny Briere also played large roles in the construction of this style of play they’ve outlined for themselves. If every player were automatons, here’s how an ideal stretch of Flyers hockey would look starting from when the other team has the puck.

D1 steps up on the puck carrier in the neutral zone, and in conjunction with a back-checking F2, disposes him of the puck. D1 and F2 win a 2on1 battle for a loose puck in the neutral zone, then use a small area pass to F1 and F3 on a two-man rush. D2 sprints the weak side of the play to create a third option in the rush.

F3 creates a chance off the rush using either his shot, F1 who is crashing the net, or D2 who has joined the rush as an option across the ice.

Let’s assume the goal isn’t immediate.

F3 becomes the new F1 on an offensive zone forecheck. The Flyers work in an aggressive 1-2-2 (so aggressive that it almost looks like a 2-1-2 at times) to kill the opponent’s exit out of their zone early. Most typically, they force a hard rim around the wall.

The pinching D1 comes down the wall and keeps the puck in the offensive zone. He and F2, once again, have a 2 on 1 situation to win a puck.

Once the puck is secured in the offensive zone, the Flyers are a team that likes to cycle for chances in the low-to-high slot. I’m not going to labor you with more lettered designations. Suffice it to say, they work the puck around the wall while they search for a player who can use their skill, guile, or explosiveness to take that puck off of the wall and work it into the middle ice.

The defensemen help get the puck off of the wall by creating outlets for the cycling forwards in the middle of the ice. Most often, they get hit coming downhill which allows them to shoot or play-make in the valuable middle ice.

You can repeat at nauseum from here. But that’s a basic laydown of how a Flyers sequence ought to look.

Now that we have that, we have a good idea of what qualities maximize this system and what qualities aren’t totally necessary. Let’s start with defensemen.

Mobility. Skating is huge for a D-man in this system. I don’t necessarily mean straight-line speed. But four-way mobility. The ability to change directions quickly. They need to be able to set aggressive gaps early to cut off puck carriers at the knees early and create that loose puck in the neutral zone which triggers this whole sequence.

Mental processing speed. Setting these aggressive gaps in real time requires the ability to process complex situations quickly. I’d call this hockey sense, but it’s too broad. The defensemen don’t need to be particularly creative, as an example. However, they need to be able to process dynamic situations quickly and accurately.

Puck skill. Getting these pucks in the middle ice means that your defenseman is going to be handling pucks in situations where a forward typically would. That means they’re either taking or creating the chance that a forward would be better equipped to finish. Unless you want to shoot at 5% or lower, I’d suggest a defenseman who can make plays when you get the puck on their stick with room to operate.

Poise. They’re going to be run down by big, burly forecheckers looking to prove to their coach that they’re hard to play against. You have people who will be rewarded if they injure you by bearing down on your ass. On top of that, you have to make a controlled play on a vulcanized rubber disk with your skinny paddle in the split second before you get plastered to boards. Yeah, I would say remaining calm is a prerequisite.

The areas that are more of a luxury:

Size. Because the defensemen are often engaged with forward support in these battles for loose pucks, if they give up pounds to the opponent while they’re tangled up, it isn’t the biggest deal. Ideally, they’d handle themselves well and do all the right things mechanically. But in a world where you have to give up somewhere, inches and pounds is an easy thing to sacrifice for the way they want to play.

1 on 1 defensive abilities. Because the defensemen are rarely in 1 on 1 engagement, it’s not a prerequisite that they be particularly good in those situations. This isn’t Carolina Hurricanes hockey. Jaccob Slavin running around and killing plays with nothing more than his brilliance as a 1 on 1 defender isn’t necessary and would often be superfluous here.

For wingers, it’s the following:

Wall skills. Raw pounds would help here, and I thought about claiming that size was a prerequisite for a winger in this environment. But ultimately, be it through size and strength or just tenacity and mechanical skill? A winger is going to have to win a battle for a loose puck after it’s inevitably rimmed around to them. And then they’re going to have to make a play to trigger a rush during that battle. The wingers are a play-driving fulcrum here.

Offensive instincts. Yup. That’s right. Owen Tippett must see waivers. But wingers are often given the responsibility of taking the puck in a dead area on the ice. The half-wall is under pressure. The back-wall. And they have actually to create scoring chances from these areas. More than simple skill or puck protection ability, that’s about vision and instincts. Otherwise, when you’re cycling, you’re just waiting for the opponent to dispossess you and start their chain of ideal plays. (Also known as “letting them play their game.”)

Net driving ability. Again, size and speed help here. That’s two areas in which size is a thing you’d rather have than not, so I would not be shocked at all if the Flyers prioritized size and strength among their wingers. But it’s also more than just size and speed. There’s a timing element. If you land at the net too early, you’re not an option in the rush. If you land at the net too late, then the play has already happened or the puck carrier doesn’t have any space. Plus, the raw ability to just finish in tight is important here. If you can beat your man to a mark, that’s ideal. But you’re going to drag defenders with you if you’re a nuclear threat to finish versus merely being a checker with hands of stone. I’ll sum this up as: “Be dangerous to defenses while driving the net, however, you accomplish that.”

For centers, it goes as follows:

Puck-carrying ability: I don’t care how you do it. Speed. Strength. Skill. Guile. A combination thereof. The center in this way of playing is going to be receiving a lot of bumps passes up the middle by the wingers and sometimes the d-men. Ideally, they will have the ability to trigger a rush by beating the first forechecker in their path and entering the neutral zone with speed.

Playmaking at speed: I consider this a different thing than merely the ability to carry the puck. This is what happens when you have successfully triggered the rush with your puck-carrying ability. The center is the most frequent puck carrier, mostly by happenstance and geography. And that needs to be leveraged. Do you hunt your shot? Do you dime up the guy driving the net? Do you pull up and hit a trailer? Once you’ve made your decision, can you execute that play with precision?

But what about their defense?

I do not care. I mean, I care in a general sense. I’d like to have it because I’d like to line up 4 Aleksander Barkov clones down the middle. Maybe I’ll treat myself with 1 Nathan MacKinnon in the mix. Unfortunately, none of this is possible. So I have to decide where I can cut costs while I’m acquiring talent.

Given that the Flyers play a zone defense that is reliant on making reads and getting 2-on-1s against puck carriers, 1-on-1 defensive ability is a luxury. And since the narrative is that defense is imperative for centers?

That means gifted puck carriers and playmakers–more of a necessity–will become buy-low opportunities because their teams may buy into narratives–or even truths–about them being subpar defenders. Would you like an example of this?

BetMGM Sportsbook: Bet $5, Get $150

• Sign up for a new BetMGM account
• Make your first deposit
• Bet $5+ on any sport
• Receive $150 in Bonus Bets instantly

Claim your free $150 here >>

MORGAN FROST! That’s right! On our team, we’re doing this! Unfortunately, we cannot buy Morgan low because we already own him.

How do you think Morgan Frost is accomplishing superior defensive results to Sean Couturier? Is it because Coots forgot defense? No, he may have forgotten the offense, the jury is still out there. But he certainly did not forget anything about defense. His defensive acumen is as high as ever, and yet…

xGA/60: 2.18 vs. 2.33 (Advantage: Frost)

GA/60: 1.7 vs. 3.18 (Advantage: Frost)

How is this possible? Because the center is rarely playing individual defense! And Morgan is very good at things this system needs centers to be very good at. Now, I think he would drive offense more successfully if he was a little bit more gifted in the “playmaking at speed” department.

This isn’t to say he has 0 gifts here. He does. But plays die on his stick due to incorrect decisions by him more often than I’d prefer with someone in his role. That means, ideally, we’d have 1 guy better at this than he is. But he remains a valuable piece.

They’re not the same player, but our version of William Karlsson. We need that Jack Eichel.

Sean Couturier? I think of him, most ideally, as Jordan Staal in Carolina. The matchup guy who we throw out for extra minutes when we really need to shut down McDavid, but otherwise, we control how much he plays to some extent.

There you go. There’s your roadmap. There’s your grocery shopping list. Go get those items. Whether you get them in trades or the draft or sign a free agent? I don’t care. Just go get them. Go acquire individuals with these skillsets that are required in their respective roles.

Once you do, the culture will be much easier to build. Because everyone feels better about themselves when they’re successful. We’ve seen that to an extent in this season, but the success has a ceiling. This? This is the strategy for breaking through that ceiling.

Kelly McCrimmon–the General Manager of the Vegas Golden Knights–resents the narrative that he just mindlessly pursues any good player with a name. And he’s right too. Because he follows this strategy. He just happens to get big names, too. He’s fleecing everybody, and he wants proper credit for it.

Do you want to pull some blockbusters or some robberies like Vegas? This is how you do it. Identify the skillset you need, then acquire it. Nobody will ever set the price high enough to truly make it worthwhile not to make that deal if you’ve properly identified the things you need.

Mandatory Credit: Nick Turchiaro-USA TODAY Sports